Tax Benefit to Coal-based Power Plants

[fallstuff]

The clean coal technology is bunch of BS from what I hear. However, in my opinion coal is the way to go.

 

[scholseys]

-When coal is used as a fuel source, the gaseous emissions generated by the thermal decomposition of the coal include sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide, and other chemical byproducts that vary depending of the type of the coal being used. These emissions have been established to have a negative impact on the environment, contributing to acid rain and climate change. As a result, clean coal technologies are being developed to remove or reduce pollutant emissions to the atmosphere. Some of the techniques that would be used to accomplish this include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, gasification, treating the flue gases with steam to remove sulfur dioxide, carbon capture and storage technologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas and dewatering lower rank coals to improve the calorific value, and thus the efficiency of the conversion into electricity.

-Environmental Organizations Don't Want Clean Coal. It's Making Fossil Energy Too Expensive.

-Getting that CO2 out of the coal and capturing it is the easiest part. Exhaust gas from coal burning is forced though a liquid solvent that absorbs the CO2. The solvent is subsequently heated to liberate the CO2 in much the way a bottle of carbonated soda releases dissolved CO2 when opened. The CO2 is then compressed to liquid form (about 100 times the normal atmospheric pressure) for storage.

-That amounts to a whole lot of CO2 to capture and store somewhere (“sequester”). For example, a carbon capture and sequester (CCS) start-up operation at American Electric Power’s Mountaineer Plant in West Virginia captures a few hundred tons of CO2 daily. This is a small fraction of about 10,000 tons produced daily by a typical 500-megawatt plant. Now consider that America’s coal-fired power plants generate about 1.5 billion tons annually. Capturing that would mean filling 30 million barrels with liquid CO2 every day, amounting to roughly one and one-half times the volume of crude oil our country consumes.

Environmental Organizations Don't Want Clean Coal. It's Making Fossil Energy Too Expensive.

-All of this costs money…lots of it. First, it demands a huge amount of energy, requiring the coal-fired plant to burn about a quarter more coal to handle the sequestration while producing the same amount of electrical power. This is required to pay for capturing the CO2, compressing it, and transferring it for storage somewhere. The added fuel demand also expands necessary mining operations, coal transportation, and, unlike plant-nourishing CO2, the production of real pollutant byproducts, such as fly ash.

-"clean coal is kinda like clean ****"

-The bad news: Carbon sequestration extracted from the coal is prohibitively expensive. Capturing and compressing coal exhaust perversely requires a lot more energy, which is costly. This, plus lingering technical concerns, make scaling up the technology difficult. The World Resources Institute, which favors implementation of CCS, notes the quandary: "In technology development there is a period referred to as the 'valley of death,' where a technology has been proven in the laboratory and on a small scale, but has yet to become commercially viable."

Clean Coal Isn’t a Joke

So the Clean Coal tech. which needs extra treatments seems would not be cheaper for BD and yes extracting coal will destroy lands.

I guess Bangladesh must wait for the 'clean coal' technology to get cheaper.

 

[eastwatch]

I guess Bangladesh must wait for the 'clean coal' technology to get cheaper.

A developing country cannot wait until eternity. It has to keep on using whatever technology is available and affordable to it. Moreover, a technology always evolves towards perfection, and it takes years. So, BD cannot probably wait for a perfect clean technology to evolve before it uses it.

The country has almost 3000 million ton of coal in its NW. The coal energy is equivalent to about 90 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas. In comparison, the country's proven gas is only 13 tcf and the probable reserve is 32 tcf. BoB reserve has not yet been decided.

The vast coal reserve, therefore, must be used in its fullest extent. The reserve will be unprofitable only when the country's labor cost becomes very high making the extraction of coal more expensive than buying coal and other alternatives from abroad.

 

[Skies]

fossil fuel i.e anything that was formed from dead organic material consists mainly of

1. coal..very abudant..but very dirty..can be used for anything but requires extensive processing ..syn gas can be manufactured but its dirty and expensive if used for that

2. conventional gas..its easy to take out because presuure is developed itself from gas field

3.tight gas..its difficult to extract than conventional gas because of lack of pressure and difficult extractiblity

4.shale gas..difficult than to extract from tight gas because you have to pump in something to get out the gas..i.e water..

5.Coalbed methane..its something old but not extracted much..simply its gas formed above coal reserves underground..very useful but requires some expetise..pakistan has large reserves of those

6.underground coal gasification.
an old process but very experimental not used much as it requires some ideal conditions..i.e very large reserves, low grade and low risk of undergroung contanimation
they burn the coal underground without air causing gas to be produced..pakistan has one small experimental plant in thar.


Nutshell we till now are only using convential gas that too only in sindh basin(sui also come in sindh basin it lies on boarder of sindh/baluchistan) and potohar region
baluchistan has very huge prospectives but is completly unexplored

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/econom...arts-producing-tight-gas-2.html#ixzz2ZZqnTYx3

http://www.defence.pk/forums/economy-development/265493-pakistan-starts-producing-tight-gas.html

 

[eastwatch]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/economy-development/265493-pakistan-starts-producing-tight-gas.html

Thar Coal underground gasification project a flop | Technology Times

STAFF REPORT LHR: Whike rejecting the Thar Coal Underground Gasification project, Punjab University Center for Coal Technology Director Prof Dr Shahid Munir has stressed that open pit mining is the right strategy to utilize Thar Coal. He proved with facts and figures that it is not technically and economically feasible.

He said this while addressing UK-Pakistan Coal Conference UK PKCC-2012 recently held at University of Leeds, UK.

A large number of delegates from Pakistan participated in the conference. The focus of the conference was the utilization of Pakistan coal for power generation.

He said that the Underground Coal Gasification is not a commercial technology and not even a single MW is being generated through Underground Coal Gasification anywhere in the world. According to him, a low calorific value gas with high vapors and pollutants as a result of underground coal gasification will be obtained that cannot be linked with the national grid neither suitable for power generation at all.

He further said that Pakistan should pursue proven and tested technologies like open pit mining. He presented his research paper on The Utilization of Sugarcane Biogases and Secondary Fuel in large Scale Combustion system for power generation.

 

[fallstuff]

-When coal is used as a fuel source, the gaseous emissions generated by the thermal decomposition of the coal include sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide, and other chemical byproducts that vary depending of the type of the coal being used. These emissions have been established to have a negative impact on the environment, contributing to acid rain and climate change. As a result, clean coal technologies are being developed to remove or reduce pollutant emissions to the atmosphere. Some of the techniques that would be used to accomplish this include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, gasification, treating the flue gases with steam to remove sulfur dioxide, carbon capture and storage technologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas and dewatering lower rank coals to improve the calorific value, and thus the efficiency of the conversion into electricity.

-Environmental Organizations Don't Want Clean Coal. It's Making Fossil Energy Too Expensive.

-Getting that CO2 out of the coal and capturing it is the easiest part. Exhaust gas from coal burning is forced though a liquid solvent that absorbs the CO2. The solvent is subsequently heated to liberate the CO2 in much the way a bottle of carbonated soda releases dissolved CO2 when opened. The CO2 is then compressed to liquid form (about 100 times the normal atmospheric pressure) for storage.

-That amounts to a whole lot of CO2 to capture and store somewhere (“sequester&#8221. For example, a carbon capture and sequester (CCS) start-up operation at American Electric Power’s Mountaineer Plant in West Virginia captures a few hundred tons of CO2 daily. This is a small fraction of about 10,000 tons produced daily by a typical 500-megawatt plant. Now consider that America’s coal-fired power plants generate about 1.5 billion tons annually. Capturing that would mean filling 30 million barrels with liquid CO2 every day, amounting to roughly one and one-half times the volume of crude oil our country consumes.

Environmental Organizations Don't Want Clean Coal. It's Making Fossil Energy Too Expensive.

-All of this costs money…lots of it. First, it demands a huge amount of energy, requiring the coal-fired plant to burn about a quarter more coal to handle the sequestration while producing the same amount of electrical power. This is required to pay for capturing the CO2, compressing it, and transferring it for storage somewhere. The added fuel demand also expands necessary mining operations, coal transportation, and, unlike plant-nourishing CO2, the production of real pollutant byproducts, such as fly ash.

-"clean coal is kinda like clean ****"

-The bad news: Carbon sequestration extracted from the coal is prohibitively expensive. Capturing and compressing coal exhaust perversely requires a lot more energy, which is costly. This, plus lingering technical concerns, make scaling up the technology difficult. The World Resources Institute, which favors implementation of CCS, notes the quandary: "In technology development there is a period referred to as the 'valley of death,' where a technology has been proven in the laboratory and on a small scale, but has yet to become commercially viable."

Clean Coal Isn’t a Joke



I guess Bangladesh must wait for the 'clean coal' technology to get cheaper.

There is just no economically feasible technology available today or in the foreseeable future to make clean coal. I believe we need to move with what is available today which is regular coal.